What Anticorruption Can Teach Us About Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy is often discussed in terms of communication with foreign publics, relationship-building and soft power. But what happens when a country’s most consequential message is not a campaign or speech, but the way its institutions act? Anticorruption brings this question into focus. It shows how domestic governance can become part of international engagement and how public diplomacy shapes the meaning others attach to that governance.

In my comparative study of Denmark, New Zealand, the United States and South Korea, I use the term “anticorruption public diplomacy” to describe how states and nonstate actors communicate and institutionalize integrity through foreign policy practice. The concept is not a new label for government messaging. It treats integrity as something states enact, explain and negotiate with international audiences. My research  develops a framework for examining how those practices connect to national identities and interests, strategic objectives, participating actors, diplomatic activities, resources and forms of power.

This article adds three questions to public diplomacy research.

First, how does governance shape the content of public diplomacy? Integrity is not simply a value that governments can project abroad. It is also reflected in institutional routines, enforcement choices, cooperation and responses to criticism. The domestic record therefore becomes part of the material with which public diplomacy works. A narrative of integrity can support international credibility, but it can also invite scrutiny when a state’s practices appear inconsistent with its claims.

"Instead of asking only how to communicate a country’s commitment to integrity, ask which institutions and relationships give that commitment credibility."

Second, who conducts public diplomacy? Anticorruption engagement extends beyond foreign ministries and official communications teams. It can involve development agencies, law enforcement bodies, regulators, civil society, businesses, international organisations and academic networks. These actors may bring different kinds of expertise and credibility. Their participation also shapes which claims are heard, challenged or accepted by foreign publics.

Third, what counts as an outcome? The effects of public diplomacy cannot be reduced to a message’s reach or a country’s position in a ranking. They also involve listening, repeated interaction, changing expectations and the negotiation of shared meanings. Foreign publics are not simply recipients of a national story. They interpret and contest it, while international networks and institutions help circulate or challenge claims about integrity.

The four cases show that anticorruption public diplomacy has no single national model. They follow a shared processual grammar, but configure their actors, resources and practices differently. Denmark’s approach is a form of reputational statecraft: it uses economic resources, development cooperation and support for institutions that sustain anticorruption norms. New Zealand’s approach relies more on relational credibility, drawing on domestic trust, inclusive engagement and cooperation across networks. The U.S. case combines norm entrepreneurship with enforcement capacity, while South Korea’s trajectory links reform and institutional renewal to efforts to reposition its international identity. These distinct configurations offer different ways to examine how integrity becomes part of public diplomacy.

For public diplomacy practitioners, this comparison points to a practical shift. Instead of asking only how to communicate a country’s commitment to integrity, ask which institutions and relationships give that commitment credibility. Map the actors involved, including those outside the diplomatic service. Create space for listening and scrutiny. Consider how foreign audiences may interpret both the reform itself and the way it is presented.

This approach offers another perspective on public diplomacy research. It directs more attention to the interactions through which domestic practices acquire international meaning, rather than focusing primarily on strategic communication and campaigns. It also connects the communication of values to the institutions that put them into practice and the audiences that assess them.

Anticorruption is a useful lens for public diplomacy because it makes credibility visible as a process. It shows how governance, communication and international engagement work together, and how their relationship can create or constrain influence. The central question is not only what a state says abroad, but how its conduct becomes meaningful to others and how those others help define what credible public diplomacy looks like.

Featured photo: Historic Christiansborg Palace and government building in central Copenhagen, Denmark.